This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] x86: remove stray instruction attributes

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:29 AM, H.J. Lu <> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Jan Beulich <> wrote:
>>>>> On 30.06.16 at 13:31, <> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Jan Beulich <> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30.06.16 at 12:23, <> wrote:
>>>>> - with Cpu64 Disp16 makes no sense for memory operands
>>>>> - with CpuNo64 Disp32S makes no sense
>>>>> - non-64-bit lgdt doesn't allow 10-byte operands
>>>> Another thing I've been thinking of, which I believe would greatly
>>>> improve readability of opcodes/i386-opc.tbl, is to remove the
>>>> various No_*Suf specifications when an instruction doesn't allow
>>>> any suffix: Since no instruction will possibly allow for every one of
>>>> them, i386-gen could easily be made set all 6 bits when none of
>>>> them got set by parsing of the input. Thoughts?
>>> I don't mind replacing all those No_*Suf with something close
>>> to what spec says.
>> I don't understand: I was proposing to remove them where they're
>> pointless (and can be inferred); I don't see how what the spec says
>> comes into the picture here (namely I didn't mean to effect any
>> behavioral change).
> No_*Suf  is something we made up.  It isn't clear which instructions
> should have it from spec.  Can we replace it with something from spec?

I opened:


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]